Posted on 01/22/2005 8:47:40 AM PST by JCRoberts
Since material from this newspaper cannot be used here, follow the link to this editorial about how dumb the paper thinks "creationists" are.
http://www.desmoinesregister.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20050122/OPINION03/501220316/1110
Read your OWN FIRST DEFINITION, you nut.
...you can lead a creationist to knowledge, but you can't make him think....
*Please* don't... It'll only reinforce the left's common stereotype of conservatives -- and in this particular case, rightly so.
Don't get too smug there... On any given day there are scores of Freepers who couldn't read a blueprint for a doghouse who nonetheless consider themselves experts on biology and physics, and qualified to denounce over a century of work and vast amounts of established science as "nonsense"...
Heck, just look at this one thread, for several examples.
LOL! That ought to be the quote of the day.
Oh dear... I see that you've made the mistake of reading creationist literature on the subject -- and believing it. Hint: Looking to creationists to "learn" about science is like looking to Michael Moore to "learn" about conservatism.
No, Pasteur did not do "quite a bit of work in debunking evolution". All he did was demonstrate that when a container is properly sealed and sterilized, modern bacteria do not re-appear spontaneously overnight. Obviously, this says little or nothing about what might be able to happen on a planet-wide scale over billions of years. However, that doesn't stop creationists from LYING ABOUT IT and declaring flat-out that Pasteur somehow "disproved" evolution. Here's just one example of that creationist lie (from freaking THOUSANDS of examples):
Reputable scientists will tell you that life cannot come from nonlife. Louis Pasteur and others have proven the fact. Yet every evolutionary theory of life origins is based on the error of spontaneous generation.For some more examples of misleading creationist reporting of Pasteur's work, and their misapplication of it to evolution or abiogenesis, and again this is just a *small* sample of the *countless* times they've pulled this crap, see Some creationist claims about Pasteur and Spontaneous Generation. For a fuller description of what Pasteur actually did (and did *not*) demonstrate with his experiment, along with more examples of creationist misuse of Pasteur (and science), see: Spontaneous Generation and the Origin of Life.
-- from the creationist website pathlights.com, on this page
Nor did Pasteur do any *other* work allegedly "debunking evolution". On the contrary, in all of his published works and remaining papers, the name "Darwin" appears exactly *once*, in a passage noting that belief in "microbial transformism" was losing ground by 1876, "in spite of the growing favor of Darwin's system." (Pasteur, Oeuvres, V, 79, page 409). Note that this doesn't even express an opinion on the merits of either position, just an observation on the level of acceptance).
And contrary to what Henry Morris et al would have you believe about Pasteur, no one really knows *what* his position was on Darwinian evolution, because he really didn't address it (too busy with his own work, probably). The nearest that can be found in his works which sounds like a comment on evolutionary paradigms is:
"Virulence appears in a new light which cannot but be alarming to humanity; unless nature, in her evolution down the ages (an evolution which, as we now know, has been going on for millions, nay, hundreds of millions of years), has finally exhausted all the possibilities of producing virulent or contagious diseases -- which does not seem very likely."
-- Louis Pasteur, in Cuny, Hilaire, 1965: Louis Pasteur: The man and his theories. Translated by P. Evans.
As for Einstein, I'm having trouble finding *anything* he might have said which could be construed as opposing evolution. Heck, not even the *creationist* sites seem to try to quote Einstein to that use, and I'm sure if there had been even a tenuous shred of support for "Einstein did not believe [evolution] either", they'd be all over it and waving it in everyone's faces.
On the contary, the only thing I can find resembling creationist sources invoking Einstein as "support" for their side is several invocations of Einstein's famous quote (regarding *quantum physics*, not biology), "God does not play dice with the universe". For example:
The highly complex and intricate manner in which the human body reproduces offspring is not a matter of mere chance or a “lucky role of the dice.” Rather, it is the product of an intelligent Creator. Albert Einstein said it well when he stated: “God does not play dice with the universe.”But this is a real stretch, since as already mentioned, Einstein was speaking specifically about quantum physics, not biology. And *furthermore*, within his lifetime Einstein came to realize that he was *wrong* when he said that... Apparently the creationists haven't caught up yet.
-- from the creationist website TrueOrigin.org
But the objections to evolution of those two great scientists are not taught in our public schools.
...because it's a creationist crock, that's why -- just like so much of the other crap creationists try to shovel in a dishonest attempt to confuse people (and schooldchildren) about the topic...
But hey, as long as you're complaining about the opinions of "those two great scientists" not being taught in "our public schools", surely you'll have no objection to the teaching of these direct quotes from Einstein, right?
"The idea of a personal God is quite alien to me and seems even naive."Creationists need to be careful what they wish for...
-- Albert Einstein, quoted in M. Jammer. 1999. Einstein and Religion: Physics and Theology, p. 121"I believe in Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the orderly harmony of what exists...not in a God who concerns himself with the fates and actions of human beings."
-- Albert Einstein, quoted in R. W. Clark. 1971. Einstein: The Life and Times, p. 502
Apparently she was. Humans are still apes.
If you disagree, please name a biological characteristic of the ape family which humans do not also share.
Humans *are* still apes -- apes of the human variety. We're also still primates, vertebrates, mammals, eutherians, eukaryotes, etc.
And while they're at it, they can teach how AE allowed his personal rejection of a personal God to influence his science in a most unEinstein like way, namely his addition of a cosmolgical constant in his theory of general realtivity to avoid a creation event.
This is one of the biggest loads of donkey dung I think I have ever read.
You seem to have forgotten to include the "because" part... You also failed to say which specific part of his multi-part statement you actually disagree with (and again, why).
By the way I am not one who believes this earth is 6,000 years old.
Good.
Who made the genes, oh I know they slithered together from pond scum.
You know, there has been an explosion of results in this field of study in the past couple of decades -- perhaps you might want to go *LEARN* something about it instead of just spouting off ill-informed sarcasm...
You could start here:
On the origins of cells: a hypothesis for the evolutionary transitions from abiotic geochemistry to chemoautotrophic prokaryotes, and from prokaryotes to nucleated cells William Martin and Michael J. RussellAnd:Abstract: All life is organized as cells. Physical compartmentation from the environment and self-organization of self-contained redox reactions are the most conserved attributes of living things, hence inorganic matter with such attributes would be life’s most likely forebear. We propose that life evolved in structured iron monosulphide precipitates in a seepage site hydrothermal mound at a redox, pH and temperature gradient between sulphide-rich hydrothermal fluid and iron(II)-containing waters of the Hadean ocean floor. The naturally arising, three-dimensional compartmentation observed within fossilized seepage-site metal sulphide precipitates indicates that these inorganic compartments were the precursors of cell walls and membranes found in free-living prokaryotes. The known capability of FeS and NiS to catalyse the synthesis of the acetyl-methylsulphide from carbon monoxide and methylsulphide, constituents of hydrothermal fluid, indicates that pre-biotic syntheses occurred at the inner surfaces of these metal-sulphide-walled compartments, which furthermore restrained reacted products from diffusion into the ocean, providing sufficient concentrations of reactants to forge the transition from geochemistry to biochemistry. The chemistry of what is known as the RNA-world could have taken place within these naturally forming, catalyticwalled compartments to give rise to replicating systems. Sufficient concentrations of precursors to support replication would have been synthesized in situ geochemically and biogeochemically, with FeS (and NiS) centres playing the central catalytic role. The universal ancestor we infer was not a free-living cell, but rather was confined to the naturally chemiosmotic, FeS compartments within which the synthesis of its constituents occurred. The first free-living cells are suggested to have been eubacterial and archaebacterial chemoautotrophs that emerged more than 3.8 Gyr ago from their inorganic confines. We propose that the emergence of these prokaryotic lineages from inorganic confines occurred independently, facilitated by the independent origins of membrane-lipid biosynthesis: isoprenoid ether membranes in the archaebacterial and fatty acid ester membranes in the eubacterial lineage. The eukaryotes, all of which are ancestrally heterotrophs and possess eubacterial lipids, are suggested to have arisen ca. 2 Gyr ago through symbiosis involving an autotrophic archaebacterial host and a heterotrophic eubacterial symbiont, the common ancestor of mitochondria and hydrogenosomes. The attributes shared by all prokaryotes are viewed as inheritances from their confined universal ancestor. The attributes that distinguish eubacteria and archaebacteria, yet are uniform within the groups, are viewed as relics of their phase of differentiation after divergence from the non-free-living universal ancestor and before the origin of the free-living chemoautotrophic lifestyle. The attributes shared by eukaryotes with eubacteria and archaebacteria, respectively, are viewed as inheritances via symbiosis. The attributes unique to eukaryotes are viewed as inventions specific to their lineage. The origin of the eukaryotic endomembrane system and nuclear membrane are suggested to be the fortuitous result of the expression of genes for eubacterial membrane lipid synthesis by an archaebacterial genetic apparatus in a compartment that was not fully prepared to accommodate such compounds, resulting in vesicles of eubacterial lipids that accumulated in the cytosol around their site of synthesis. Under these premises, the most ancient divide in the living world is that between eubacteria and archaebacteria, yet the steepest evolutionary grade is that between prokaryotes and eukaryotes.
The emergence of life from iron monosulphide bubbles at a submarine hydrothermal redox and pH front M. J. RUSSELL & A. J. HALL: Department of Geology and Applied Geology, University of GlasgowAnd:Abstract: Here we argue that life emerged on Earth from a redox and pH front at c. 4.2 Ga. This front occurred where hot (c. 150)C), extremely reduced, alkaline, bisulphide-bearing, submarine seepage waters interfaced with the acid, warm (c. 90)C), iron-bearing Hadean ocean. The low pH of the ocean was imparted by the ten bars of CO2 considered to dominate the Hadean atmosphere/hydrosphere. Disequilibrium between the two solutions was maintained by the spontaneous precipitation of a colloidal FeS membrane. Iron monosulphide bubbles comprising this membrane were inflated by the hydrothermal solution upon sulphide mounds at the seepage sites. Our hypothesis is that the FeS membrane, laced with nickel, acted as a semipermeable catalytic boundary between the two fluids, encouraging synthesis of organic anions by hydrogenation and carboxylation of hydrothermal organic primers. The ocean provided carbonate, phosphate, iron, nickel and protons; the hydrothermal solution was the source of ammonia, acetate, HS", H2 and tungsten, as well as minor concentrations of organic sulphides and perhaps cyanide and acetaldehyde. The mean redox potential (ÄEh) across the membrane, with the energy to drive synthesis, would have approximated to 300 millivolts. The generation of organic anions would have led to an increase in osmotic pressure within the FeS bubbles. Thus osmotic pressure could take over from hydraulic pressure as the driving force for distension, budding and reproduction of the bubbles. Condensation of the organic molecules to polymers, particularly organic sulphides, was driven by pyrophosphate hydrolysis. Regeneration of pyrophosphate from the monophosphate in the membrane was facilitated by protons contributed from the Hadean ocean. This was the first use by a metabolizing system of protonmotive force (driven by natural ÄpH) which also would have amounted to c. 300 millivolts. Protonmotive force is the universal energy transduction mechanism of life. Taken together with the redox potential across the membrane, the total electrochemical and chemical energy available for protometabolism amounted to a continuous supply at more than half a volt. The role of the iron sulphide membrane in keeping the two solutions separated was appropriated by the newly synthesized organic sulphide polymers. This organic take-over of the membrane material led to the miniaturization of the metabolizing system. Information systems to govern replication could have developed penecontemporaneously in this same milieu. But iron, sulphur and phosphate, inorganic components of earliest life, continued to be involved in metabolism.
The Path from the RNA World Anthony M. Poole, Daniel C. Jeffares, David Penny: Institute of Molecular Biosciences, Massey UniversityAbstract: We describe a sequential (step by step) Darwinian model for the evolution of life from the late stages of the RNA world through to the emergence of eukaryotes and prokaryotes. The starting point is our model, derived from current RNA activity, of the RNA world just prior to the advent of genetically-encoded protein synthesis. By focusing on the function of the protoribosome we develop a plausible model for the evolution of a protein-synthesizing ribosome from a high-fidelity RNA polymerase that incorporated triplets of oligonucleotides. With the standard assumption that during the evolution of enzymatic activity, catalysis is transferred from RNA M RNP M protein, the first proteins in the ``breakthrough organism'' (the first to have encoded protein synthesis) would be nonspecific chaperone-like proteins rather than catalytic. Moreover, because some RNA molecules that pre-date protein synthesis under this model now occur as introns in some of the very earliest proteins, the model predicts these particular introns are older than the exons surrounding them, the ``introns-first'' theory. Many features of the model for the genome organization in the final RNA world ribo-organism are more prevalent in the eukaryotic genome and we suggest that the prokaryotic genome organization (a single, circular genome with one center of replication) was derived from a ``eukaryotic-like'' genome organization (a fragmented linear genome with multiple centers of replication). The steps from the proposed ribo-organism RNA genome M eukaryotic-like DNA genome M prokaryotic-like DNA genome are all relatively straightforward, whereas the transition prokaryotic-like genome M eukaryotic-like genome appears impossible under a Darwinian mechanism of evolution, given the assumption of the transition RNA M RNP M protein. A likely molecular mechanism, ``plasmid transfer,'' is available for the origin of prokaryotic-type genomes from an eukaryotic-like architecture. Under this model prokaryotes are considered specialized and derived with reduced dependence on ssRNA biochemistry. A functional explanation is that prokaryote ancestors underwent selection for thermophily (high temperature) and/or for rapid reproduction (r selection) at least once in their history.
Thanks to you, the List-O-Links grows again. I already had one link debunking the creationoid lie about Pasteur's work, but now I've added another: the one from talk.origins.
Oh my the peeeeerd review shows up to preen its long neck.
Get a grip NOT one word of your uppity revolutions disavows or negates an Almighty Creator. Consider your self 70% fresh squeezed orange juice.
God created the universe and scientists have figured out a little bit of his handiwork. They'll never get it right if they deny his existence and his creation.
The point I was making is that it isn't a FACT, like the LAW of Gravitation (not the THEORY of Gravitation).
I question the blind devotion to evolution as much as I question the blind devotion to creationism. If evolution is the process that governs development, I don't think it impossible that God made it. Creationism doesn't preclude evolution, any more than evolution precludes creation. Even the Creation was an evolving process, taking "seven days" instead of an instant.
I think it is presumptuous to assume that God DIDN'T create the process of evolution--that limits what He can or can't, or did or didn't, do...
"God created the universe and scientists have figured out a little bit of his handiwork. They'll never get it right if they deny his existence and his creation."
WHY? The Bible does not say that this earth and heavens are only 6,000 years old, yet many many lay hold to this claim. So who is more wrong, those that deny the Creator or those who ignore what the instruction book tells us.
Pope Polish?
Porcupine p*ss on a flat rock?
Hobby Horse have a hickory d*ck?
;-)
Is a bear Catholic?
Please use original titles.
Thanks.
Evolution -- as a description of how life began -- is a creationist strawman. Evolution does not cover the origin of life.
No, but I have read Genesis.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.